The tax dodge

posted at 10:01 am on July 14, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

Remember that “fiscal cliff” we were heading toward last year? Yes, I know… who has time to worry about that when we could be talking about Bain Capital or whether Condi will be Veep? But the cliff remains dead ahead, and thus far nobody seems to have their hand on the tiller. Among many items included in the pending date with destiny is the question of what to do about the Bush tax cuts, as they are known.

The Tax Foundation’s handy dandy tax predicting tool lays out the three basic choices facing us as follows:

The three default scenarios are: full expiration of all Bush-era and Obama tax cuts, full extension of these cuts, and President Obama’s plan to partially extend these cuts for families making under $250,000 per year ($200,000 for single filers.)

So which one of these approaches has the best chance of setting things to rights? It seems as if you can put that question to 15 different economists and come up with very nearly 15 different answers. But in the end, I think it boils down to leadership how willing one is to be honest with the American people about the choices we face, as well as being able to stick to your principles.

About a year ago, Ed and I had something of a debate over whether America has a spending problem, a revenue problem, or if the two are mutually exclusive or not. (For the record, we seemed to finally agree that what we really have is a recession problem.) But it’s an important question to address as Washington debates the future of the tax cuts.

Here’s the problem. You can tackle this from the point of view which says that taxes need to go up to generate more revenue and let all of the tax cuts expire, or you can say that the economy would stall from that kind of a blow and allow none of them to expire. And in the world of politics, both look like political suicide depending which side of the aisle you’re seated on. So the President has cooked up a plan to expire the tax cuts on the wealthiest two percent while leaving the cuts in place for everyone else.

Unfortunately, the only way this looks like a winner is in the eyes of some political analysts trying to win an election. Economists don’t seem to like it at all. Even some of the President’s most ardent supporters admit that the amount of revenue we’re talking about is roughly $85B per year under the most sunny, pie in the sky scenario imaginable. I’m not trying to say that $85B is chump change, but compared to the federal budget it’s not much more than a rounding error.

Barack Obama either needs to be brave enough to raise everyone’s taxes and stand firm on his belief that he can stimulate the economy back to good health, or abandon the tax and spend agenda entirely. But he needs the help of Congress to actually do anything. Obama has already said that he would veto any bill that extended all of the tax cuts.

Sadly, since the politics seems to play better on television than boring old math, Obama’s message seems to be sinking in.

Unfortunately for everyone, there is one path forward which doesn’t require any work by Congress or the President. If you want all of the cuts to expire and everyone’s taxes to go up, all you have to do is… nothing. And when you need somebody to do nothing, you can’t find a much better team of crack troopers than the United States Congress. God help us all.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

How about this choice- Cut government.

Mr. Arrogant on July 14, 2012 at 10:04 AM

These current tax rates are about to go up..

What will Mr Downgrade-Taxman do?

Electrongod on July 14, 2012 at 10:06 AM

So the President has cooked up a plan to expire the tax cuts on the wealthiest two percent while leaving the cuts in place for everyone else.

Unfortunately, the only way this looks like a winner is in the eyes of some political analysts trying to win an election. Economists don’t seem to like it at all.

Somebody on talk radio said it would shring GDP by a full percentage point (that is, growth of 1.5% would become .5%).

itsnotaboutme on July 14, 2012 at 10:09 AM

shring shrink

itsnotaboutme on July 14, 2012 at 10:09 AM

Somebody on talk radio said it would shrink GDP by a full percentage point (that is, growth of 1.5% would become .5%).

itsnotaboutme on July 14, 2012 at 10:09 AM

It’s not a bug – it’s a feature.

Midas on July 14, 2012 at 10:17 AM

How about this choice- Cut government.

Mr. Arrogant on July 14, 2012 at 10:04 AM

Works for me

workingclass artist on July 14, 2012 at 10:19 AM

Has anyone actually predicted when we go “over the cliff”? We have been hearing this for some time and I truly believe it will happen, but when? What will be the signs? Total meltdown of America, hyperinflation, deflation, food shortages, riots? I really am curious as to what happens or is there a link to read about this. Any thoughts?

hip shot on July 14, 2012 at 10:21 AM

What we meed to do is eliminate about 537 jobs in Washington D.C.
and let the adults in America take charge.

All Politicians need to be voted out.

redguy on July 14, 2012 at 10:24 AM

Well, now.
We are most definitely middle class, self-employed.
And according to that handy dandy tax tool above, it looks like our taxes will nearly double.
Granted, I didn’t have ALL of the required info in my head when I used it, but, as my hubby’s bizz accountant, I got pretty close, I’m sure.
UTOPIA !!!
Barf.

pambi on July 14, 2012 at 10:26 AM

Any thinking person knows that America has a spending problem,
along with a growing government resulting in job killing overreach regarding regulations and taxation.

You can spin it any which way you want, however, the facts are
the facts.

Sometimes it really is simple. Take that all you self described
intellectuals.

Amjean on July 14, 2012 at 10:26 AM

Obama has already said that he would veto any bill that extended all of the tax cuts.

Being the despot that he is, this is a threat leveled at the extremely wealthy for not ponying up to his campaign this year.

I’m sure that Obama’s tax policy will evolve once the 1% start coughing up cash.

BobMbx on July 14, 2012 at 10:26 AM

It’s especially stupid now, when you have so many business-owning (or just high-income) Baby Boomers deciding whether to keep working, or retire. When you shut down your small business, to retire, you’re not the only one that loses a job. Push that Tax Freedom Day out even a few more weeks, and that’ll be enough for a lot of people. Finally, no more 70-hour weeks trying to keep the doors open.

RBMN on July 14, 2012 at 10:26 AM

Barry’s tax plan would raise $85 billion. Enough to run the federal government for just over 1 week.

That should be repeated to the public over and over as Congress extends all the tax cuts and tells Barry to LEAN FORWARD and BEND OVER.

GarandFan on July 14, 2012 at 10:27 AM

What Obama knows is that raising taxes on incomes over $250,000
will kill small business…..

His crony capitalists are licking their chops….

Why do you think Obama keeps pushing foodstamps and
making it easier to go on welfare? He wants those little capitalists
to relax and bendover….

redguy on July 14, 2012 at 10:27 AM

And when you need somebody to do nothing, you can’t find a much better team of crack troopers than the United States Congress. God help us all.

I don’t know…somehow Congress managed to pass the biggest socialist, budget buster of all time a couple of years ago…you know, that Obamacare thing.

AUINSC on July 14, 2012 at 10:30 AM

As we saw in the 80s, under Reagan’s tax cuts, the Dem Congress was spending $1.35 for every new dollar coming into the Treasury. Also at that time, liblets were screaming about an annual budget deficit of (a paltry) $64 billion.

Tax increases to ‘balance the budget’ don’t work because Congress spends like mad. The entire budget system they use means that, even if they do nothing, spending increases automatically.

They use a baseline: How much did we spend last year on Program X, and how many more people will need the program this year? That’s their start point. So, since more people are in the population and in supposed need of Program X, the budget for it automatically goes up.

Congress then factors in inflation, market value of the dollar, and God knows what else.

Worse, Congress keeps useless old programs like the Helium Fund, which was started in the 1930s to ensure the US has enough helium for our airships, which were an important mode of transport and for the military back then.

We don’t have a tax problem. We have a spending problem.

Mark Twain said it best, along these lines: The beauty of America is that we have been able to raise a criminal class: Congress.

Liam on July 14, 2012 at 10:32 AM

How about this choice- Cut government.

Mr. Arrogant on July 14, 2012 at 10:04 AM

ehh? what’s that you say? why I’ve never in all my years heard of such a thing… cutting government.. are you nuts?

The congresscritters say it can’t be done, so who you gonna believe?

RockyJ. on July 14, 2012 at 10:35 AM

cutting government.. are you nuts?

The congresscritters say it can’t be done, so who you gonna believe?

They must know better than we do…….obviously cutting is going in the wrong direction.

hawkeye54 on July 14, 2012 at 10:42 AM

If non-defense federal spending were cut to its pre-New-Deal level of 2.5% of GDP, the deficit, tax and recession “conundrums” would all be solved in a very few years — and about a hundred other societal and criminal problems would be greatly reduced.

Next question?

logis on July 14, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Of course, it doesn’t help matters that – thanks to Roe v Wade – we have 50 million fewer people than we might have. At least 25 million of thoe would be working age by now, thus contributing to the economy/tax base.

It’s the same story all across the developed world.

Add to that the fact that so many well-educated, high-earning women are putting off having children until much later in life and then only having one or two children (whether by choice or because their fertility peters out).

Not only do we end up with fewer potential high earners, the ones that ARE born end up almost a full “generation” behind (being born when their moms are 35 instead of 20).

TeresainFortWorth on July 14, 2012 at 10:46 AM

We don’t have a tax problem. We have a spending problem.<

Liam on July 14, 2012 at 10:32 AM

Actually we also have a tax problem, the current tax code is criminal.

We need a flat or FairTax enacted… Make EVERYONE contribute and have skin in the game. If we place the non fed tax paying 47% back into the equation then they will learn the truth that nothing is free.. Everyone needs to pay and imo the only fair equitable way is paying the same percentage regardless of income. , No freeloading allowed..

But yes , the numero uno problem is out of control SPENDING by a political class that is ADDICTED to spending our money..

RockyJ. on July 14, 2012 at 10:49 AM

You can tackle this from the point of view which says that taxes need to go up to generate more revenue and let all of the tax cuts expire, or you can say that the economy would stall from that kind of a blow and allow none of them to expire

Time to pull out my Language Martinet Hammer.

The “tax cuts” are in fact “tax rate cuts”. The importance of this normally-omitted word is that cutting tax rates can in fact result in more tax revenue, and raising rates can result in less revenue. (This happens at any point above the Laffer Maximum.) So a tax rate cut can in fact be a “tax increase” and a tax rate increase can be a “tax cut”.

Veronique du Rugy has done an analysis of federal tax revenues that shows increased marginal rates have done nothing to increase revenues, which are stuck between 19 and 20 percent of GDP. When increased rates cause GDP to go down, they bring in less revenue.

By leaving out the word “rate”, we encourage people to conflate the movement of the rate with that of revenue. Stop it. Always put the word “rate” in.

The Monster on July 14, 2012 at 10:51 AM

The whole raise taxes meme by prince clown is a ruse. Does anybody with a logical mind really believe that any tax increase would be used to paydown our $16T of debt?

Obumbler in Chief continues to show his hand (re: Thursday night’s EO on Welfare) – its just more spending, whether it be further enabling welfare recipients or encouraging food stamp recipients. He has never in his presidency shown one iota… one inkling that his spending will do anything other than create more bureaucracy and more entitlements. All this by a guy who had to remind us he was laser-focused on job creation.

Did the $5T of spending and crony payoffs to his bundlers and unions buddies actually help anything in this country? In the LSM world we live in, they would have us believe there is a fine line between “trying as hard as he can” and absolute, total, abysmal failure.

VietVet_Dave on July 14, 2012 at 10:57 AM

Of course, it doesn’t help matters that – thanks to Roe v Wade – we have 50 million fewer people than we might have. At least 25 million of thoe would be working age by now, thus contributing to the economy/tax base.

It’s the same story all across the developed world.

Add to that the fact that so many well-educated, high-earning women are putting off having children until much later in life and then only having one or two children (whether by choice or because their fertility peters out).

Not only do we end up with fewer potential high earners, the ones that ARE born end up almost a full “generation” behind (being born when their moms are 35 instead of 20).

TeresainFortWorth on July 14, 2012 at 10:46 AM

Two generations of Americans have been selfish on two levels. Both overspending, and underprocreating. That’s all it takes to severely damage a strong nation–two generations of selfishness.

We’re here to love people and use things–not use people and love things.

RBMN on July 14, 2012 at 10:58 AM

(For the record, we seemed to finally agree that what we really have is a recession problem.)

And the primary reason we continue to have a recession problem is because we have a spending problem.

Really, this stuff’s not that hard for non-libs.

98ZJUSMC on July 14, 2012 at 10:59 AM

I see this like the child bent on sticking a nail in the wall socket.

You can talk until your blue in the face about why they should not take that action, but in the end, some children just have to learn the hard way.

Go ahead, see what happens. You know you want to!

hobbit on July 14, 2012 at 11:01 AM

Whenever I read crap from my RSS feed which sounds like it belongs on the Frum Forum (if its still around) I know that Jazz Shaw is the author.

kevinkristy on July 14, 2012 at 11:06 AM

RockyJ. on July 14, 2012 at 10:49 AM

I fully agree. We need a flat tax rate for everyone. No loopholes, and only sensible deductions that people need to be able to live reasonably well.

And, more: EVERYONE pays. I mean, if people on UI have to pay taxes, why not welfare recipients, too? If people ‘should’ be getting off welfare, tax them and see how fast those ingrates go get a job.

I have heard perfectly healthy people talking about their Social Security ‘disability’ payments.

Tax it!

I have seen people buy tons of junk food using an EBT card, then move around the counter to pay cash for a truckload of lottery tickets.

Tax it all!

I believe that, when the train comes in, any- and everyone can ride. But ya gotta pay the fare.

Liam on July 14, 2012 at 11:09 AM

Ut oh, first zombie found in couple’s house while they were on vacation Refuses to cooperate.

/Obama, 2012

Key West Reader on July 14, 2012 at 11:19 AM

Ut oh, first zombie found in couple’s house while they were on vacation Refuses to cooperate.

/Obama, 2012

Key West Reader on July 14, 2012 at 11:19 AM

cr6 finally surfaces?

slickwillie2001 on July 14, 2012 at 11:31 AM

The most predictable financial crisis in our nation’s history is staring us in the face yet Congress does nothing.

The irony is, well, unbelievable…. during the time the senate and house finance committees were grilling Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan on how that company lost millions (of private money), the government spent almost a billion dollars (of public money).

Money they don’t have so it was really a billion borrowed. It’s the spending, stupid.

jb34461 on July 14, 2012 at 11:33 AM

slickwillie2001 on July 14, 2012 at 11:31 AM

LOL!

Actually, I think the zombie is Toure’ from MsNBC

Key West Reader on July 14, 2012 at 11:37 AM

Glozelle Green

Explains.

Key West Reader on July 14, 2012 at 11:39 AM

I’m not trying to say that $85B is chump change,

OK then, I’ll say it. $85 billion is chump change in the hands of the federal government. It will do nothing for this economy as it will turn to dust. $85 billion in the hands of small business owners will be managed much more efficiently and might actually lead to jobs!

lynncgb on July 14, 2012 at 11:40 AM

My sister, Glozelle Green

She’s a You Tube Actress

Key West Reader on July 14, 2012 at 11:41 AM

We snicker at Italy, Greece and Spain and think, what a bunch of eurotrash losers they are! We are them. At 36%, U.S. government spending relative to GDP is very close to Spain’s. And our debt-to-GDP ratio is 103%; Spain’s is 68%.

We just don’t want to acknowledge it and the Fed helps disguise the problem by printing more money.

In my best Dandy Don Meredith voice, “Turn out the lights…..”

jb34461 on July 14, 2012 at 11:53 AM

Any discussion of taxation and spending by government, Federal or otherwise, is meaningless unless it is discussed in terms of taxation as a percentage of GNP. There is an optimal number, around 20 percent I believe, above which the economy is negatively impacted.

Spending should be adjusted to that level, period.

Right now, due to the depression, taxation as a percentage of GNP is, according to the Heritage Foundation, around 26 percent.

Of course, this is because GNP has shrunk due to the economic slowdown.

That’s why we need to cut taxes during a slowdown.

It’s O.K. to keep spending, and borrowing during the crisis period to maintain demand.

Once the economy kicks back in, taxes can be raised to get back to the 20 percent level, and the debt should be paid off.

The Bush tax cuts accomplished what they were suppposed to during the 2001 recession.

The time to eliminate them was when the economy was surging in 2006-2007, at the peak of the bubble. That might have helped let the air out in a more controlled fashion.

Now it is time for more cuts, not fewer.

Mr. Arkadin on July 14, 2012 at 11:58 AM

Bush didn’t blame this on Clinton

Key West Reader on July 14, 2012 at 12:08 PM

I blame Bush

Key West Reader on July 14, 2012 at 12:10 PM

Never Forget

Never relent.

Key West Reader on July 14, 2012 at 12:14 PM

Obama has already said that he would veto any bill that extended all of the tax cuts.

Sadly, since the politics seems to play better on television than boring old math, Obama’s message seems to be sinking in.

…sadly, if Jugars mentions not “extending all of the tax cuts” five or six times a day…there is a camera and mic on him EVERY time…and of course “this is news”…so it has to be on the air constantly…and we know what happens if BS gets repeated enough!

KOOLAID2 on July 14, 2012 at 12:21 PM

It’s moronic to talk exclusively about extending tax cuts or letting them expire, raising or lowering taxes, or anything having to do with manipulating taxes as a means of addressing our financial crisis as long as the systemic dysfunction brought on by 60 plus years of Liberal social, political, AND economic policies remains in place.

Cleombrotus on July 14, 2012 at 12:48 PM

And when you need somebody to do nothing, you can’t find a much better team of crack troopers than the United States Congress. God help us all.

Jazz, you are aware that the Framers deliberately set up a system for gridlock, aren’t you?

Gridlock and non-action is good.

Dante on July 14, 2012 at 1:09 PM

A counter-majoritarian system is nice when folks want to do too much; yet when items get thru, is absolutely terrible for “correcting” the situation.

I couldn’t give a dump about this issue. Until the Tax Code becomes proper, all else is distraction and sideshow. Rates are irrelevent with deductions, exemptions, credits (refund and non-refund), etc..

John Kettlewell on July 14, 2012 at 1:55 PM

There is something ironic about all of this.
Raising the top tax rate won’t hurt the rich much: they are doing just fine. However, it will make them not work as hard or take those important risks, decreasing their productivity, and that hurts all of the rest of us.

So, despite the fact that I am unlikely to ever pay that top tax rate, I am probably more hurt by raising it than the people who do pay it.

Count to 10 on July 14, 2012 at 3:51 PM

I couldn’t give a dump about this issue. Until the Tax Code becomes proper, all else is distraction and sideshow. Rates are irrelevent with deductions, exemptions, credits (refund and non-refund), etc..

John Kettlewell on July 14, 2012 at 1:55 PM

It’s worse: all of those deductions, exemptions, and credits represent an unmeasured distortion of the economy by the government that really should be included when we talk about government spending.

Count to 10 on July 14, 2012 at 3:56 PM

How about cutting spending? There’s an idea!

What we really need is to end ALL federal programs and start from scratch. Every program and expenditure added to the budget should be shown to be a useful expenditure of money EVERY YEAR, or at the very least every 2 or 4 years.

The congress will be so busy with that they won’t have time to hack away at our private property and liberty in all this excess spare time they seem to have.

Wolfmoon on July 14, 2012 at 4:13 PM

The US (as well as many other nations) doesn’t have a spending or revenue problem, they have a Social Marketplace problem. The perpetual “spending versus revenue” debate is a misdiagnosis of the problem. The problem is centralized politically driven social marketplaces are inherently fiscally, as well as morally, instable and lead to eventual fiscal as well as moral bankruptcy. No amount of adjustments to spending or revenue will treat this cancer.

Instead of defining the various social marketplaces (education, health care, housing, pensions, etc) to be individually driven according to marketplace rules, with prudent self adjusting accommodations for those of limited means, politicians have tried to play Santa Claus buying votes for this or that Social Marketplace program, generally at the expense of future generations as well as the general prosperity of today’s economy.

Any solution that doesn’t address taking the centralized and special interest politics out of these various social marketplaces is doomed to be little more than a temporary fix on a long downhill slide into some sort of economic abyss.

There are plenty of options, as well as examples, of how the various social marketplaces can be redefined toward individually driven social marketplaces. Chile provides an example of how personalized retirement plans work. There are others. There are pockets of HSA health care coverage that are working fine in the US even given the straightjackets politicians have encumbered them with — if they’re not killed by Obamacare. There are other examples around the world such as Singapore. Similar sorts of models can be applied to education and other social marketplaces.

What is needed is recognition that government’s proper role isn’t to provide these various Social Marketplaces via some central command and control system. Government’s proper role is to define and implement individually driven, Social Marketplaces that are sensitive to marketplace whims, while also providing structures for those of limited means — with a natural unassailable check and balance against perverse expansion of ‘limited means’ to larger and larger populations via politicians buying votes as Santa Claus.

How the US got here is simple — During FDRs days, politicians determined that the Preamble to the Constitution was irrelevant and started to ignore the guidelines it provides for how the powers of the Federal Government are to be used. As a result, instead of promoting the general welfare, politicians have pushed providing special interest welfare over promoting the general welfare — this buys votes… They also ignore preserving liberty for our posterity (future generations) by buy votes today for goodies that future generations will have to pay back. Then there’s the shadow government of federal bureaucracies that basically write law without regards to Congress or the Constitution and the Preamble — taking liberty away one regulation at a time, many regulations each day…

Judges, politicians and many of the populations have bought into this extra-Constitutional fantasy of a cradle to grave worship of big government that will solve all problems, big and small. It does no such thing — government is the problem, not solution. The solution isn’t smaller government, it’s individually driven compassionate social marketplaces. Individually driven social marketplaces will result in a small government that also provides access by all to a vibrant and healthy set of social marketplaces for all.

drfredc on July 14, 2012 at 5:13 PM

The US (as well as many other nations) doesn’t have a spending or revenue problem, they have a Social Marketplace problem.
….
drfredc on July 14, 2012 at 5:13 PM

It’s a spending problem driven by socialist programs needing to be funded through the removal of private wealth….redistribution. It’s a tax to fund the stuff problem and it’s a spending to keep people down problem.

Socialism IS a problem all around.

Wolfmoon on July 14, 2012 at 5:42 PM

Socialism is basically a centrally controlled Social Marketplace owned by government.

There are other forms of centrally controlled Social Marketplaces that don’t fit the classical definition of Socialism — Obamacare, for example, isn’t strictly socialized health care because the private sector carriers administer the programs the centralized federal bureaucracies largely define. The taxation/cost shifting to support coverage of those with lower incomes is in part paid for by redistributing overpriced premiums paid by those with middle to higher incomes. The overpriced premiums are basically a hidden tax on middle income folks on up, collected and managed outside of ‘normal’ government revenue and spending channels. Socialism it’s not, but a centralized social marketplace it is. At least it’s not the Mandated Employer Subsidized Socialism (MESS) that HillaryCare was all about.

Home financing via Fanny and Freddie are similar examples of federally centralized Social Marketplaces that have run amuck with a mix of private and public sector financial enterprises being puppeteered by federal bureaucracies and politics.

There are plenty of other examples of centralized Social Marketplaces in the US and around the worlld that don’t fit classical Socialism but should be treated with equal distain. Then there’s public schools — they are basically socialized education save for how the funding is mixed between local and federal sources — trending towards more federal control, at least until the feds figure out they don’t have the money…

drfredc on July 14, 2012 at 11:10 PM

Hip Shot:

Has anyone actually predicted when we go “over the cliff”? We have been hearing this for some time and I truly believe it will happen, but when? ….

Two sources I have found are pretty good on this. The first is the blog ZeroHedge that is following the Europe situation closely. It is less about predictions than an unvarnished look at the lunacy that is passing for policy over there.

You can also check out a book written by John Mauldin titled “Endgame”. He also examines Europe and the US and does make some predictions.

mrveritas on July 15, 2012 at 2:42 PM

Mr. Arkadin:

While I think the gist of your thoughts are correct I also believe you are misinformed on several specifics.

Any discussion of taxation and spending by government, Federal or otherwise, is meaningless unless it is discussed in terms of taxation as a percentage of GNP. There is an optimal number, around 20 percent I believe, above which the economy is negatively impacted.

I don’t think there is any evidence that 20 percent is an optimal number. Rather history has shown that under various taxation schemes the economy delivers between 18 – 20 % of GDP in revenue.

Spending should be adjusted to that level, period.

There is no rational reason that spending should be equal to revenue rather than being less. One of the major fallacies from government is the process of estimating how much revenue there will be and then spending it rather than ONLY spending what is truly needed.

It’s O.K. to keep spending, and borrowing during the crisis period to maintain demand.

This statement is standard Keynesian thinking that assumes that maintenance of artificial demand is what drives the economy. We have had 3 years of this and it hasn’t had a positive effect.

Once the economy kicks back in, taxes can be raised to get back to the 20 percent level, and the debt should be paid off.

Tax receipts will grow once the economy improves so the need to increase tax rates is unnecessary. Likewise, if borrowing to maintain artificial spending levels isn’t done then there won’t be any debt to pay off.

You might want to research the 1920-21 recession / depression. President Harding’s response was to aggressively and ACTUALLY cut government spending. The slowdown was deep but very brief as opposed to our “death by a thousand cuts” approach of Obama.

mrveritas on July 15, 2012 at 3:01 PM

If we don’t stop letting the media and our own people enter discussions which ASSUME the validity of “static economic analysis”, we are never going to make any progress.

“Static Economic Analysis” only works in an environment where people have neither a choice nor a brain. In the real world, it NEVER works, and we should ALWAYS call out those who insist on basing policy on it.

landlines on July 15, 2012 at 7:55 PM